Hireko wants YOU to be a part of the design process for our new 2010 driver. Jot down any ideas you may have and post it as a comment here. All ideas will be posted and shared with the Hireko community.

As the process develops, you will be able to comment and tweak the design. We want to make this new driver a collaborative effort with you in the driver’s seat.

So put on your designers hat and give us your ultimate driver!

Post all comments here.
Disclaimer
Hireko reserves the right to reject or accept any ideas submitted to the design of the new driver. All comments and suggestions posted on this blog are the sole property of Hireko Golf.

34 comments

I’d love to see drivers take on some of the same MOI theories integrated in putters. – where not only are weights pushed rearward towards the corners, but so is the actual physical mass of the club. Often putters (I think of “claw-shapes”) have the entire mass moved away from behind the ball – while something that extreme isn’t available with a driver head – certainly a more muted version is.

The best example of the shape I have in mind is if you imagine looking down at the state of Ohio from above – drawing a horizontal line across the state south of columbus with that line being the face – and the lake erie coast, with the indentation of the coastline being the backside of the clubhead.

Also – would it be legal to have interchangable weights at those points? Or would that start getting into fiddling with USGA MOI maximums?

I recently assembled a driver. I am a senior golfer and I do not have the stenght when I was in my twenties.
I have done a lot of research on the internet and came up to the conclusion that having the driver weight as low as possible. The reasoning is that lighter driver weight transfers into faster club speed. The driver head does not have to be a large club head like a 460. I used a 410 Head and I feel like a have more control.

I recently assembled a driver. I am a senior golfer and I do not have the stenght when I was in my twenties.
I have done a lot of research on the internet and came up to the conclusion that having the driver weight as low as possible. The reasoning is that lighter driver weight transfers into faster club speed. The driver head does not have to be a large club head like a 460. I used a 410 Head and I feel like I have more control.

I have experimented with a driver in which I bored holes thru the face, one at the hosel end and one at the toe end. This to try to improve driver head speed by reducing resistance at contact with the ball. The holes go all the way thru to the back of the head. Problem I found was odd wind noise and may have completely changed weighting effect. Has this idea ever worked in other designs?

I would prefer a pear shaped driver with 60 mm of face height containing some type of material to make it sound like persimon when hit. It would also have interchangable (hosels) contained within the clubhead ala Callaway and be at the max allowed total size 460cc. The face would be 1 to 2 degrees open and perimeter weighted as much as possible. It would be painted black metalic with an indicator marking, moulded into the crown indicating the center of the clubhead and a relatively smooth sole. Finally, I think it should have neutral weighting with the ability to change the weighting should one wish to.

I personally like the square head design, as it seems to help quite a bit with slightly off-center hits. I’d like to see something in the Acer line that takes the best qualities of the Caiman driver, Mantara driver and the System Q square driver.

A cup face is a must. Also, the use of multiple materials (carbon/fiber, titanium, magnesium, aluminum, etc) to distribute the weight is becoming more and more common.

I’d like to see something weighted low and to the outside rear of the head – preferably with the largest sweet spot you can muster.

I posted the attached comment yesterday and through the night had an afterthought to modify it. The 2010 driver I was describing is actually a version of a strategy I’ve used successfully in the past. I’m old enough to have used drivers when they were wooden and called a #1 wood. I also have had a #2 wood and a #4 wood. I essentially modified that later on by putting a second driver in my bag. I had varrious iterations but they always filled a gap such as: Driver #1 between 44 to 48 inches long with a 7 to 9 degree loft. Followed by Driver #2 between 42 to 44 inches long with a 10 to 13 degree loft. I would also carry a #3 fairway and a #1 iron (yes I could hit a #1 iron). That #2 Driver was used a lot for tight fairway tee shots and when the #1 Driver was not cooperating…it just felt better than going for the #3 wood (the downside is in tournaments I always had to agonize over what clubs to take out of the bag, depending on the course, to hit fourteen clubs). My point to all of this is I could see you making a significant mark for yourselves by introducing a #2 ICT type Driver to accompany the new #1 ICT type driver. The # 2 driver could have lofts like 10, 12, and 14 degrees and with the interchangeable shafts people could experiment with the right lengths for them. Just a thought from way outside the box. Read the following from yesterday:

Jim Grant // Feb 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm

I think the 2010 Hireko driver should be a Hybrid of sorts. Hybrid irons are readily accepted now as easier to hit. Just like the Caiman Rawpower is easier to hit as a #3 wood because the shaft is shorter. I am a retired long drive crusher and have had my share of long drivers but always struggled with accuaracy. I think if you can create a driver with combined performance materials and shorten the shaft a little bit you can have a winner. If the volume goes a little below the 460 cc figure and shrinks the face a little that is OK as long as it performs. The list to incorporate is as follows by priority:
#1 ICT type shaft changes.
#2 Maraging steel face
#3 Cup face design
#4 Whatever crown and body shape design and composites that will accomodate the above wish list and also add to the overall aerodynamic efficiency and MOI.
#5 Allow the weight to increase up to 208 grams (just like a #3 wood) and cut the shaft to 43.5 or 44 inches. Also design in backweighting in the grip if necessay. I know some of these things would fight the current trend but I know they can work. People will live with a smaller head if you can prove it is easier to hit! I was customizing drivers over 35 years ago and have some historic drives that were hit with old technology that are just now being challenged. Go for it!! Hireko is a great company and deserves a breakout product! Good luck.
Jimboyayaya

The new driver heads are getting a bit out of hand (imho). Oversized drivers are fine, but the new super jumbo ball launchers these companies are putting out are ridiculous. With a sweet spot the size of Rhode Island even my daughter can knock one out of the park.

I am probably a lone wolf, but feel most people hit too low of a loft, and actually like a high loft driver which is square faced, neither open nor closed. By set up I can close the face a little and hook the ball or open it a little and fade it. I also prefer a little higher face rather than flatter and wider, again to allow me to shape the shot a little.

I realize 90% of the people I make clubs for are slicers, and won’t learn to quit casting the swing, so the ability to put a little weight at the rear is a help.

A HiBore design only smaller (380 to 400cc) with a bit of a Triangular shape, give it a solid feel and sound.. go with a square to 3* ,offset with lofts 9 to 14*…. weighted for shorter shaft options.. design a shaft with nano tech, covering the 3 needed launch angles, low med and high….keep cost in mind but not dictating…. give it a name and a paint job that makes you proud to carry it ( a number for lack of a name)….

As odd as it sounds, I would love to see a “new generation” persimmon head driver. That right, I said persimmon. I know the production costs are very high for wood heads, but I believe there would be a portion of the golfing public that would love this retro concept in the $50-75/head range.

I would incorporate the following design features:

1) 280-300cc persimmon wood head
2) low profile “Ginty” design
3) heavy “v” soleplate
4) no more than a 43″ black graphite shaft in the 55-60 gram range and no more than 4 degrees of torque
5) 11-12 degrees of loft
6) no whipped ferrule, but a Callaway-like bore through design but with a metal core ferrule like Louisville golf does with their drivers
7) mid to jumbo size grip
8) jet black high gloss finish
9) minimal lettering on the sole plate, just “1” and “Hireko Custom”
10) black plastic hitting insert
11) no screws used on sole plate or insert – perhaps other more attractive fasteners.

Two ideas:
1) “Modern equipment honoring the past” is a good theme! Design a pear-shaped driver series with all the modern technology necessary (workability for the better golfers, maximizing MOI capabilities for the weaker golfers, etc.) with a link to the past: fancy faces. That’s right, paint a fancy-face “insert” on the face with the colorful “dots”, “circles around the large circle” design, the old “Mt. Fuji” design, or whatever. Make the top beautiful with something similar to the old MacGregor Chieftain design. There simply must be a way to make modern clubs good looking with a little “art” and a clear poly/spar protective finish!

I play approximately half my rounds (any older course under 6,600 yeards) with my hickory shafted playset. It brings back the original playability of the course that the architect envisioned. Friends literally can’t put the unusual and “pretty” clubs of my playset or collection down for some time after putting them in their hands. So why not bring the past to the present and put some art back into the clubheads?

2) Design a driver to work with an inexpensive etching machine that can place a graphic design or photograph on the driver face, bottom, top or even the shaft. That way a golfer can truely customize his/her clubs with a corporate logo, a photo of the family on the top of the club, a sight-line with the words “The World’s Best Dad”, or even placing a photo of Bin Laden or the “ex” on the face of the club!

A symmetrical bullet shape
A cup face with a skirt long enough to incorporate the hosel
no scorelines
The ICT hosel
a one piece, hollow, phenolic resin shell body with two weight ports in the rear area that use screws ranging from nylon plugs to 15g tungsten screws to adjust the mass from 185g with the nylon plugs to 215g with two 15g screws.
59º lie angle at the neutral hosel position

8.5º, 11º, and 13.5º variants in right and left hand models

To construct the head:
The hosel fixture would be welded in place once positioned in the skirt area of the cup face.
the phenolic resin body and cup face would utilize tabs that would click into place after some type of high heat, high impact industrial adhesive or contact cement was put in place to assure a permanent bond.
The symmetrical design and the assembly process are intended to help in reducing assembly costs, particularly for left hand models, since the rear shell would be the same for all models.

Joe Rogers:
“The driver head does not have to be a large club head like a 460.”

I actually prefer a head around 250cc. Gigantic driver heads often look silly, psychologically discourage a controlled swing, and don’t last through very heavy use without cracking/denting.

Darrell Early:
“…containing some type of material to make it sound like persimon when hit.”

Filling hollow metal heads with foam can tune the frequency to something similar to that of persimmon. This used to be widely done in early metalwoods. It also totally eliminates the possibility for “head rattle.” Springlike effect may be reduced, but I have heard that this really only comes into affect in 115mph+ swings. Most golfers do not consistently swing that fast.

Jim Grant:
“…shorten the shaft a little bit you can have a winner. If the volume goes a little below the 460 cc figure and shrinks the face a little that is OK as long as it performs.”

I use a 43’’ driver for control. I get better distance with a 43.5’’ driver, but lengths longer than that don’t help me. Again, a smaller head is very much a welcome thing by me.

“Allow the weight to increase…”

Building a higher total weight driver (like steel shafted ones) with a short, ultra-lightweight shaft, kind of heavy grip, and heavier head (shaft tuned for heavy head) can yield a normal looking swingweight. The increased face-axis M.O.I. of a heavy driver head would make larger heads and perimeter weighting less necessary. Also, this would allow the “extra mass” in the head to be used more structurally, creating a higher quality driver.

“People will live with a smaller head if you can prove it is easier to hit!”

I believe there is plenty of room to reduce driver clubhead size before it becomes too small. With a short, spine-aligned shaft and a higher loft (like 11.5 to 12.5 for me), I don’t see great improvement from increasing a metal driver head past 165cc. It really is not harder, just different.

jim schlosser:
“i would like to see smaller heads”

Again, somebody mentions this.

Jim Ewald:
“I am probably a lone wolf, but feel most people hit too low of a loft, and actually like a high loft driver”

Increasing my driver’s loft to 11.5 degrees actually made me hit the ball farther, taking it to 12.5 produces very straight drives with little loss of distance. You are not alone!

I have read this. I tested distance and ball contact from 42’’ to 45’’. 42.5’’ gave me the best contact and 43.5’’ gave me the best distance.

“Great marketing”

!!!DEFINITELY!!! Marketing can convince people of anything. I would like to see a great deal less hype and actually convince customers with the truth, even when it is the harder thing to do. Any successful driver needs good marketing to truly make it a long term success.

A smaller clubhead is again mentioned. Solid feel and sound can be achieved with a more structural, foam filled, smaller, heavier, and thus shorter driver. I agree that costs should be more controlled. The cost of a quality golf club is out of hand. In my opinion, cost reduction innovation is badly needed.

Hey, what happened to my comments? All the entries from 3/28 to 4/13 are missing!

A quick recap… The driver should ideally have:

1) A flat face with only a loft angle – Eliminate all the bulge and roll silliness. If “gear effect” actually worked, the driver would be the MOST accurate club in everyone’s bag. People would never grab a fairway wood or even an iron to hit from the tee on holes with narrow fairways. What happens is that the MOI causes the convex face of the driver to act like the string on a child’s spinning top, dragging along the ball and imparting an outward spin which only INCREASES hooks and slices.

2) Increased loft – I saw a computer simulation which showed higher loft drivers actually increase distance nearly up to the swing speed of a tour player. A loft of up to perhaps 12-13 degrees (men’s standard) and 14 degrees (senior) should be standard. It also allows for more carry and less roll which will help us get over (or not roll into) those nasty fairway bunkers.

3) Larger grips – Let’s face it… The ONLY reason to wear a glove is to add more thickness between the hand and the grip. Modern grip materials can easily be gripped securely by a person’s bare hand. There’s a reason tennis players don’t wear grip gloves. The handles on tennis rackets are larger in circumference. For years, I’ve used larger “arthritis” grips and no glove, with much greater success than my friends who use smaller grips and gloves. The hand stays uncovered and doesn’t sweat as much. Textured grips (tabs, bumps, or ridges) push slightly into the players’ skin when gripped, giving a secure grip with much less pressure. That equals a GREAT deal less hand/arm fatigue and better overall performance.

How about a driver with a telescopic shaft,Its has 2 advantage,1 being and adjust to any golfers height.2nd advantage would be that this club could be used by juniors as well as adults without doing and clubfitting.I would make the head inter changeable such.One minute it,s a driver next minute its a fairway wood or a hybrid,simply by just changing the head as well as adjusting the shaft.

I also agree with the idea of a smaller clubhead. Having a smaller head with a hotter face would increase distance while not necessarily losing control. A little bit heavier on both ends and a shorter shaft could produce incredible results for the average golfer.

Build an 830 MOI 400-460 cc flat hot face adjustable weight driver that will allow for lie adjusment plus or minus 2 degrees from standard without having to use a special bending machine or tool. Also offer the same driver in different incremental starting lie angles to obtain up to plus or minus 6 degrees from standard with variable lofts for the club builder, 8-13 degrees would suffice. Incorporate interchangeable shaft technology. Examine the potential for distributing the weight on the bottom of the clubhead in the form of a crucifix with an overlay of the crucifix 3D’d on the top of the club. Suggested name, Hireko Halo!

I seem to hit my fairway woods and hybrids great. My driver is less than consistant. I can’t explain it. I hit my 3 wood off the tee as often as my driver. I really would not mind a low profile driver (similar to the Acer XP905 Fairway Wood) with a 9.5 or 10.5 degree face.

How about a driver that has a “smaller than 460 cc” head? I know that larger heads have their benefits – a larger sweet spot, etc. – but have gold designers gone too far?

Do the larger heads and thinner faces make for lesser stability of the head and contact point? Does the trampoline effect lead to higher incidence of heads crumpling on impact?

Another thing involves “sight picture,” a concept from competitive rifle marksmanship.”Sight picture” was how your eye perceived the front and real sights in alignment with each other. This was controlled by “spot weld,” the contact point the side of your face had with the rifle stock as you aimed it.

My analogy is this: If you have a driver with 400+ CC size, and your FW woods are 200 CC and your irons are only 2/3 as wide as your driver head, does this require one to devise a separate “sight picture” when aligning drivers? Drivers have often been referred to as a “separate club” that requires extra practice… has the giant size heads made this even worse?

I see lots of Callaway steelhead and Hawkeye drivers in the used club bins. Heads are in the sub-400 CC size range, but they sure look and feel like solid clubs.

Also, for the size that is retained, I would like to see deep-faced drivers. For those that play recession-stressed public courses, the deep face would give us a bigger margin of error on the chopped-up and hanging lie tee boxes.